ALLEGED LIBEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 116, 18 May 1903, Page 2

ALLEGED LIBEL.

OHIEIf JUSTICE ON GAMBLING. VJSRDIOT FOU DEFaMDANT. PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION. Napier, May 16. The summing up of the Oh'ef Jus tice in the lib 1 cate Eigleton v. Kxowl s, proprietor of the Daily Telegraph, was par icularly convincing. He said the newspaper did not make an untrus statemen -. Ths facts were trui and it waa only when tbere was something untrue and about a man that it cons'itutsd a libel. It must be a direct charge of misconduct, not simply that there were reasons why hs was not fit to take part in publio life. Tbe jury must take it as true then that Eagleton had bßen be ting, and if the hw had been properly cirried out in Napier (His Honor did not blame p )lice, for perhaps they had not be;n abje to obtiin the ncceisary information) then p'aintiff ought to be in gaol, as he was 1 able to three months imprisonment for each offence. If so, was a man, who ought to be in gaol according to Statute law, to takj a' prominent part in public affairs, and were they to s y that a newspaper ought to ba punished for expressing that opinion? It was not for His Honor to express an opinion upon the restrictions placed apon gambling by che Government, but they could not say there was no moral side to the question wh n'they knew the history of what gambling had done. Ttiey knew hundreds of youths who were ruined by thus " burning the eandle." They eaw them often coming up for sentance. He put it to the jury, as fathers, would thoy like to see their sons going iuto a shop? If there was nothing mordly wrong about it why should not thvir daughters aud their sons go in there, ■ nd did they mean to say that a man wbo offended against the law as plaintiff hid djne, who ought to hive been in g.iol, was a man fit to take a prominent part .in local affiirs in Napior ?

A veidict for defendant was given on all the issues, with cos's.